This
guide was prepared by Peter A. Gallerani, Integrated Technologies,
Inc., and
Kevin Klink, CH2M Hill. Douglas Grosse, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), Office of Research and Development, National Risk
Management
Research Laboratory (NRMRL), served as the project officer, co-author,
and provided editorial assistance. Dave Ferguson, U.S.EPA, NRMRL,
served as the technical advisor.
The
following people provided technical review, editorial assistance
and graphic design: Dr. David Szlag, U.S.EPA, NRMRL; Paul Shapiro,
U.S.EPA, Office of Research and Development; Joseph Leonhardt, Leonhardt
Plating Co.; Dr. John Dietz, University of Central Florida; Carol
Legg, U.S.EPA, NRMRL; and John McCready, U.S.EPA, NRMRL.
The
following is a synopsis of EPA document EPA/625/R-99/008. The complete
document is posted on PF Online with permission from David Grosse
of the U.S. EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory. You
can also check out other current EPA publications and information
from EPA's Office of Research and Development's Center for Environmental
Research Information at its Technology Transfer Highlights Homepage
at http://www.epa.gov/ttbnrmrl/.
This
document provides technical guidance to surface finishers, environmental
managers and decision makers on control technologies and process
changes for approaching zero discharge (AZD). AZD is one of the
key themes underlying the Strategic Goals Program (SGP), a cooperative
effort among the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
American Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Society, the National
Association of Metal Finishers, and the Metal Finishing Suppliers
Association to test and promote innovative ideas for improved environmental
management within the metal finishing industry. For more information
on this program, see http://www.strategicgoals.org.
In
its broadest sense, "zero discharge" means no discharge
to any media. More commonly, zero discharge focuses on zero wastewater
discharge. This report presents information and strategies for approaching
zero discharge for concentrated process fluids and associated rinse
waters from surface finishing manufacturing. This focus is intended
to minimize discharges of spent and/or underused process fluids.
Specific SGP goals addressed in this report are:
- Improved
use of process chemistry (SGP goal is 98% metals utilization on
product);
- Water
use reduction (SGP goal is 50% reduction); and
- Hazardous
waste emissions reduction (SGP goal is 50% reduction in metals
emissions to air and water, and 50% reduction in hazardous waste
sludge disposal).
The
following list provides a section-by-section overview of this report:
Section
2: Systematic AZD Planning
This section and related Appendix A provide key considerations
for planning through implementation of any AZD project. Without
systematic planning and appropriate implementation, an AZD project
can fail or fall short of overall potential. The techniques and
technologies presented in Sections 3-6 should be pursued within
a systematic framework. Specific approaches within these general
categories may be used independently or in combination to meet
specific AZD goals.
Section
3: Process Solution Purification and Recovery Technologies
This section presents technologies for in-plant purification and
maintenance of surface finishing process solutions and rinses.
Pursuing this approach results in reduced discharges through improved
use of process solutions.
Section
4: Rinse Purification or Concentrate Recovery Technologies
This section presents technologies for purification of rinses
for recycling to surface finishing processes. Pursuing this approach
can result in a combination of improved use of process solutions
and water.
Section
5: Alternative Surface Finishing Processes and Coatings
Section 5 advances alternative surface finishing processes and
coatings. Most of the alternative surface finishing processes
and coatings can result in substantial reductions in discharges
compared to traditional processes.
Section
6: Improving Existing Process Conditions and Practices
This section presents techniques for modifying existing process
operations and plant practices. Reduced discharges can result
in modifications that provide for better process optimization.
Section
7: Conclusions
Section
8: References
Appendix
A: Systematic Approach for Developing AZD Alternatives
This is a supplement to Section 2 that presents a systematic method
to guide the identification, development, and implementation of
AZD actions.
Appendix
B: Installed Costs
This appendix provides installed cost information.
Systematic
AZD Planning
Systematic AZD solutions can be developed by integrating holistic
source reduction planning, including considerations for multiple
sources, composite solutions and life cycle process and facility
optimization. Nine key considerations for systematic AZD planning
are:
1. Is
the AZD target a fixed endpoint or an optimization point?
The type of AZD target frames the overall AZD options and the
planning approach. A fixed endpoint could be below or beyond the
most cost-effective (optimal) AZD target. For example, assume
that for a particular wastewater stream, the most cost-effective
(life cycle) approach would be to use single-stage reverse osmosis
to recycle water and reduce wastewater by 80%. A less-than-optimal
AZD target might be to pursue a 50% reduction goal, and a beyond-optimal
AZD target might be to pursue a 90% or 100% wastewater reduction
goal. These endpoint goals may be based on specific drivers or
constraints, such as cost. As zero discharge is approached, the
costs for incremental discharge reductions can increase significantly
in proportion to the benefits achieved.
2. What
tradeoffs are there between point source and more combined reduction
strategies?
Point source AZD strategies involve the use of bath or rinse purification
systems for individual tanks or sources. Alternative strategies
might include combining compatible streams from different processes
for purification/recovery. This could include use of single fixed
location recovery systems (e.g., centralized reverse osmosis/ion
exchange for recycling rinse waters from several process lines).
Another combined strategy would be to use a mobile system to perform
intermittent purification/recovery of several point sources. For
example, a single mobile diffusion dialysis system might be used
to purify/recycle several different acid baths. Combined strategies
may be more cost-effective, due to economy of scale, unless there
are substantially increased plant interface requirements. Point
source systems may offer more flexibility, redundancy and reliability.
3.
What tradeoffs are there between up-the-pipe pollution prevention
and end-of-pipe pollution control?
Up-the-pipe systems can reduce end-of-pipe system requirements.
For example, bath purification and water recycling can combine
to reduce wastewater treatment system contaminant loading and
hydraulic sizing. In-plant systems may also produce byproducts
requiring waste treatment or management.
4.
What combination of technology, technique and substitution would
provide the best overall solution?
Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 present a range of technologies, techniques
and process substitution strategies for AZD. Integrated approaches
should be considered as potential improvements over single-approach
solutions. These sections cover diffusion dialysis, microfiltration,
membrane electrolysis, acid sorption, electrowinning, ion exchange,
reverse osmosis, vacuum evaporation, atmospheric evaporation and
alternative processes.
5.
What future production and facility scenarios should be considered?
AZD solutions should consider overall life cycle and future production
and facility needs. Potential future requirements may lead to
modified AZD alternatives, or more allowances for change. Defining
future scenarios may lead to specific phased implementation plans
or decisions to accelerate/delay plans for facility renovation.
6.
Are AZD solutions well defined?
Whether dealing with a single-point source, multi-process or overall
facility alternatives, all significant impacts should be identified
and implemented to define requirements for a comprehensive AZD
solution. Those include process byproducts, cross-media impacts,
plant interface and utility requirements, operations and maintenance
requirements. A particular approach may be able to meet the primary
AZD performance requirement (e.g., 90% acid reuse) but may present
implementation problems caused by other aspects (air discharge
requiring ventilation system, permitting, etc). Comprehensive
definition of AZD alternatives is important to identify barriers
to implementation.
7.
How does the surface finishing process chemistry change with production?
One key dimension is understanding the chemistry for each process
step and how the chemistry changes during production cycles, including:
- Transfer
or transformation of process chemicals rendering them unavailable
for production; and
- Generation
of contaminants that reduce the useful life of process chemicals.
Changes
in process chemistry can necessitate the need to purchase fresh
or make-up process bath chemicals. Similarly, the increased volume
of waste process baths and rinses requiring treatment results
in more waste treatment chemicals and corresponding increases
in waste generated.
8.
What opportunities are there to use existing systems? New systems?
Enhancements to existing systems may produce significant benefits
at low cost and overall effort. Additional capital for new systems
may result in overall net beneficial gains in capacity, productivity,
reduced wastes, automation and space. Beneficial process changes
may also result from eliminating or consolidating processes.
A
variety of management practices and technologies are available to
enable surface finishing manufacturers to approach or achieve zero
discharge. Individual or combined actions consisting of source reduction,
process water recycling, and process substitution need to be considered
to determine the best approach for specific applications. Understanding
process chemistry and production impacts are essential to the identification,
evaluation and implementation of successful AZD actions. Systematic
methods can be used to help managers move effectively through the
planning, decision-making, and implementation phases. Systematic
considerations can be included in AZD planning to optimize integrated
process, environmental and facility benefits. Benefits from implementing
AZD projects can include: reduced costs, waste generation and chemical
usage, increased regulatory performance and enhanced facility operations.
However, as zero discharge is approached, the costs for incremental
discharge reductions can increase significantly in relation to the
benefits achieved. Suggested areas for additional development to
help advance AZD initiatives include:
- Water
and rinse water quality standards;
- Process
solution contaminant standards;
- Process
pollution prevention and control technology verification data
linked to specific applications; and
- Installed
cost and operations and maintenance.